Pakistan Navy Frigates & Destroyers Information pool

[Tank131]

If PN is gonna spend the effort and $ to make alamgir effective then it shoud also go for a mk41 or sylver A50 vls. Get quadpack essm or CAAM to give it quality air defense. Also they should go buy the 3 decommissioned Adelaides from Australia and acquire the other 3 when they are decommissioned. Its times like this i wish PN had acquired the Spruance class destroyer when it was offered. Much of the weaponry would have come with it, especially essm and possibly even the sm1 or sm2. That would have been able to provide reasonable fleet defense, but as per usual Pakistans plan ers are short sited and have an overinflated idea about their self worth.

 

[Penguin]

If PN is gonna spend the effort and $ to make alamgir effective then it shoud also go for a mk41 or sylver A50 vls. Get quadpack essm or CAAM to give it quality air defense. Also they should go buy the 3 decommissioned Adelaides from Australia and acquire the other 3 when they are decommissioned. Its times like this i wish PN had acquired the Spruance class destroyer when it was offered. Much of the weaponry would have come with it, especially essm and possibly even the sm1 or sm2. That would have been able to provide reasonable fleet defense, but as per usual Pakistans plan ers are short sited and have an overinflated idea about their self worth.

Only 4 of 6 Adelaides were upgraded. Adelaide and Canberra were scuttled as diving wrecks. Of the four remaining ships, HMAS Sydney decommissioned in early november 2015.

You basic FFG7 frigate as now being retired from USN (without Mk13 launcher and STIR) can easily be rearmed with 2x4 Harpoon forward of the bridge. Two SeaRam (one in place of the Phalanx on the hangar area, one atop the truncated mk13 remains forward) would give some air defence capability, particularly when backed by a) the 76mm Oto Melara and b) a pair of single barrel remote control cannon of 25-30mm. Or Phalanx in the rear and a 21 cell ram launcher forward. Either way, Ram block 2 is quite capable.and more effective in countering more maneuverable anti-ship missiles. The HAS (Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface targets) upgrade just required software modifications.

A single Spruance would not have made a difference. It is Sea Sparrow armed (single mk 29 launcher, which could be modified to fire ESSM) and does not carry SM1 or SM2. Even if it has a 61-cell mk 41 launcher forward, it has no illuminators to support either version of the Standard missile (unlike the four derivative Kidd class ships sold to Taiwan). And all these ships are hugely manpower intensive for such a small navy. (Spruance complement: 19 officers, 315 enlisted = 334 / Kidd complement: 31 officers, 332 enlisted = 363 / Perry complement: 176)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruance-class_destroyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidd-class_destroyer

 

[Tank131]

Only 4 of 6 Adelaides were upgraded. A single Spruance would not have made a difference. It is Sea Sparrow armed (mk 29 launcher) and does not carry SM1 or 2. Unlike the four Kidd class ships sold to Taiwan.

Thanks for the info. Regarding the Adelaides, 4 upgraded ones is still infinitely vetter than what PN has now. Acquiring all of them means still giving PN up to 7 OHP which could be upgraded to G-class level with 4 out 7 already halfway there (minus sm2 unless US willing to sell it for the Adelaides which still have their mk13 arm). It is still the best way to augment the PN quickly with a reasonable frigate with decent air defense capability for relatively cheap. It would instantly make the OHPs the most capable frigates in PN at least until something lime type 054a is acquired if that ever happens.

 

[Penguin]

Thanks for the info. Regarding the Adelaides, 4 upgraded ones is still infinitely vetter than what PN has now. Acquiring all of them means still giving PN up to 7 OHP which could be upgraded to G-class level with 4 out 7 already halfway there (minus sm2 unless US willing to sell it for the Adelaides which still have their mk13 arm). It is still the best way to augment the PN quickly with a reasonable frigate with decent air defense capability for relatively cheap. It would instantly make the OHPs the most capable frigates in PN at least until something lime type 054a is acquired if that ever happens.

7?

I doubt more Perry's are forthcoming from the US. The potential non-US sources would be
4 modernized Australian ships, of which 3 in active service
6 Spanish ships, of which 4 modernized, all 6 still in service

 

[Tank131]

I didnt catch the part where you said 2 were scuttled. I would still go after the remaining Adelaides (1 now and 3 when retired by 2019) and upgrade them with the VLS and SeaRAM as you mentioned, along with Harpoon. Gives you potential by 2020 to have 5 OHP that are still far better shape than the Type 21. I am kinda dissappointed in the planning of PN who seems to be stuck in the 90s as far as defense procurement, focusing on surface threats when they are completely exposed to aerial attack.

 

[Penguin]

I didnt catch the part where you said 2 were scuttled. I would still go after the remaining Adelaides (1 now and 3 when retired by 2019) and upgrade them with the VLS and SeaRAM as you mentioned, along with Harpoon. Gives you potential by 2020 to have 5 OHP that are still far better shape than the Type 21. I am kinda dissappointed in the planning of PN who seems to be stuck in the 90s as far as defense procurement, focusing on surface threats when they are completely exposed to aerial attack.

Spain's Santa Maria class dates from 1986 to 1994. So, the oldest is now reaching normal life end (28 years > 2014). However, cash strapped Spain has opted to give these ships an MLU. SO, I expect these to remain in service for some time e.g. untill 2026, by which time the oldest will turn 40.

Taiwan has built its CHeng Kung class (in service 1993-2004), which I don't expect to be replaced anytime soon either. Taiwan is getting ex-USN Perrys to replace even older Knox class ships in its service.Nor do I expect Turkey to give theirs up (modernized too). So that pretty much leave Australia as the only non-US source of OHPs. Unless, Egypt (4), Bahrain (1) or Poland (2) decide to give up their ex-USN ships.

PN duties include anti-piracy in Arabian see, where Pakistan's EEZ will be expanded. There are no actual sea foes. PN follows a sea denial strategy vv India. AAW ships aren't a priority in that scheme.

 

[khanasifm]

Bottom line is building one sub and one frigate in country will not get u anywhere compared to jf17 where ur requirement plus foreign sales can mean around 300 aircraft production can develop and industry will skill labor force for naval ship /sub industry and skill labor to grow u need at least some sustained production so additional f22 and sub are needed

 

[khanasifm]

to be built locally

 

[MKC]

Can't Pakistan get older Chinese ships, why are you looking for older USN ships?

 

[Penguin]

Thanks for the info. Regarding the Adelaides, 4 upgraded ones is still infinitely vetter than what PN has now. Acquiring all of them means still giving PN up to 7 OHP which could be upgraded to G-class level with 4 out 7 already halfway there (minus sm2 unless US willing to sell it for the Adelaides which still have their mk13 arm). It is still the best way to augment the PN quickly with a reasonable frigate with decent air defense capability for relatively cheap. It would instantly make the OHPs the most capable frigates in PN at least until something lime type 054a is acquired if that ever happens.

After the refit, the Australian ships are capable of firing SM-2MR missiles from the Mark 13 launcher. Unlike the refitter Turkish OHPs, which retain SM-1MR afaik.

 

[Tank131]

But US may not sell it to Pakistan.

 

[Tank131]

Can't Pakistan get older Chinese ships, why are you looking for older USN ships?

Older chinese ships arent worth having without extensive modifications. The 052 destroyer and 051B are no more capable than F-22p with respect to antiair capabilities. They carry more AShM but that is not where PN is lacking.

PN should focus on smaller ships which are multipurpose in the 1500-3000t range. Building on the Sa'ar5 approach a small 1500t vessel with 8 AShM and 16 or so medium range sams (they use Barak8, PN could go for Umkhonto-r which may be able to be quad-packed like other umkhonto versions and has 60km range).

Then go for a small number (4-6) of Air Defense heavy frigates for fleet defense using a longer range sam (like hq-9 or Aster30) and some point defense missiles like FM-3000 or CAMM.

What would be very interesting would be FACs like Hamina class which carries 4 AShM and a vls for 8 umkhonto-ir. At 250t they are what the Azmat should be. Scale it up to Azmat size 560+ tons and exchange the 8 umkhonto-ir sams for 16 umkhonto-r and the 4 AShM for 8 on something of Azmats 500t size and you have a very potent corvette. Add to it a powerful 3d radar like Smart S mk2 or TRS-3D/16 (like on Hamina) which have more than 200km range and you have a relatively cheaper alternative to medium frigates (though they wont have the range/endurance of a frigate). Exchange the 21mm cannons for the ak630 ciws (as done on type022 fac and the current ak630 could be exchanged for an 8 cell FL-3000N for more protection

 

[Tank131]

Although the schematic is incorrect about the placement of the rbs-15 (there are actually pop-up 1x2 launchers on either side of the zodiac raft landing) you can kinda make out the doors. But in a scaled up vessel the are that the schematic is actually showing would be ideal so as to allow the back to be used by a helicopter. It gives and idea about how such a ship could ideally be designed and if scaled up, better vls system could be used tp quad pack 16 umkhonto-r rather than the 8 individual cells.

It also validates my earlier point on a modified f-22p that the location of the vls sam could be moved to behimd the conning tower as here in the hamina and the AShM cpuld be moved elsewhere (where the sam is now) to prevent re-engineering the subdeck levels.

 

[Inception-06]

Only 4 of 6 Adelaides were upgraded. Adelaide and Canberra were scuttled as diving wrecks. Of the four remaining ships, HMAS Sydney decommissioned in early november 2015.

You basic FFG7 frigate as now being retired from USN (without Mk13 launcher and STIR) can easily be rearmed with 2x4 Harpoon forward of the bridge. Two SeaRam (one in place of the Phalanx on the hangar area, one atop the truncated mk13 remains forward) would give some air defence capability, particularly when backed by a) the 76mm Oto Melara and b) a pair of single barrel remote control cannon of 25-30mm. Or Phalanx in the rear and a 21 cell ram launcher forward. Either way, Ram block 2 is quite capable.and more effective in countering more maneuverable anti-ship missiles. The HAS (Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface targets) upgrade just required software modifications.

A single Spruance would not have made a difference. It is Sea Sparrow armed (single mk 29 launcher, which could be modified to fire ESSM) and does not carry SM1 or SM2. Even if it has a 61-cell mk 41 launcher forward, it has no illuminators to support either version of the Standard missile (unlike the four derivative Kidd class ships sold to Taiwan). And all these ships are hugely manpower intensive for such a small navy. (Spruance complement: 19 officers, 315 enlisted = 334 / Kidd complement: 31 officers, 332 enlisted = 363 / Perry complement: 176)
Spruance-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kidd-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The kidd class destroyer (last picture) shows that Pakistans Alamgir destroyer could also house a vertical launching air defence system. I my opinion we are not using the full potential of the Alamgir destroyer.

Notice the two 12.mm AA Guns installed on left and right on the tower (I am proud that they have done this



PN FSA

 

[Penguin]

The kidd class destroyer (last picture) shows that Pakistans Alamgir destroyer could also house a vertical launching air defence system. I my opinion we are not using the full potential of the Alamgir destroyer.

No images of a Kidd class destroyer were posted. Showns was USS Cushing, a Spruance class destroyer.
USS Cushing (DD-985) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By comparison, this is a Kidd class ship (USS Chandler, DDG 996), now in Taiwanese service.

It is quite obvious that Alamgir/McInerney can house an 8-cell Mk41 VLU, as these have been fitted in e.g. Australian and Turkish ships of the FFG7/Perry type. Which means, it could also mount a similarly sized French VLU from the Sylver family. But, that doesn't solve the fire control issues

Both the Turkish and Australian ships retain the full mk 92 fire control system, which is an Americanized version of the Signaal (now Thales) WM-25 system designed in The Netherlands. The MK 92 track-while-scan radar employs the Combined Antenna System (CAS), which houses both search antenna and tracker antenna inside a single egg-shaped radome. A Separate Target Illumination Radar (STIR) designed for the PERRY-class MK 92 FCS application provides a large diameter antenna behind the main mast for target illumination at ranges beyond CAS capabilities.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-92-fcs.htm
Mark 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike the Turkish and Australian ships, however, Alamgir (and any Perry retired since 2003) no longer mounts the STIR. Which leaves the ship with 1 short range engagement channel to engage air targets with by missile (as opposed to 2, of which 1 is long range). So, you can load a Perry up with 32 SM1 or longer ranged SM2 plus 32 ESSM (a point defence system by todays' standard, but with a range comparable to SM1, which was an area defence weapon in its day) but without additional target illumination channels, you can only engage 1 target by missile, out to limited distance (less than full missile range). For the Australian and Turkish ships, this has remained 2 channels. For survival in a modern environment, where simultaneous attack by multiple anti-ship missiles from multiple directions will be the norm, a minimum of 2 channels would be required for all round coverage, and preferably more (e.g. using radars like APAR, MF-Star, CeaFAR/CeaMount) to cope with saturation attack.

So, IMHO, for Alamgir, the best option would be an 8 cell VLU (Mk41 or Sylver), that can be quad packed with a imaging infrared homing or active radar homing missiles. E.g. RAM Block 2, using extensible launching system with the VLU, or CAMM. Those missiles would not need any radar illuminators (SARH) or radar directors (CLOS) for missile control.

Notice the two 12.mm AA Guns installed on left and right on the tower (I am proud that they have done this

Too bad it is a pair of manually controller 12.7mm DShK Machine Gun in a naval mount
SVSM Gallery :: Soviet 12.7mm DShK Machine Gun in a Naval Mount, by Vladimir Yakubov
Russian 12.7 mm (0.5") DShK

Rather than a pair of remote controlled 12.7mm HMGs e.g.:

M09N REMOTE CONTROLLED WEAPON STATION WITH 12.7mm HMG ON LIGHT NAVAL MOUNT | SDPR - Yugoimport

Pap Tecnos Innovación Remote Control Weapon Stations